Portuguese parliament initiates debate on legalizing euthanasia

[Mike88]

Today, the Portuguese parliament initiates the debate about the legalization of euthanasia. The debate was scheduled after a petition signed by more than 8,000 people, was delivered to Parliament.

PS and PSD will give their MPs liberty to vote, PCP, PEV, BE and PAN will vote in favour, CDS is still undecided wanting to find a more human solution and opening still the possibility of having a national referendum on this subject.

More here:
http://24.sapo.pt/atualidade/artigos/eutanasia-acompanhe-aqui-ao-minuto-a-discussao-no-parlamento

[Person Man]

Euthanasia or assisted suicide?

[Mike88]

Euthanasia or assisted suicide?

Only euthanasia. Assisted suicide will continue to be illegal.

[Person Man]

Euthanasia or assisted suicide?

Only euthanasia. Assisted suicide will continue to be illegal.

You mean, its not the patient's choice? If so, I'm against it.

[Mike88]

Euthanasia or assisted suicide?

Only euthanasia. Assisted suicide will continue to be illegal.

You mean, its not the patient's choice? If so, I'm against it.

It is patient choice but only a doctor can administer the lethal dose of drugs, not the patient.

[fhtagn]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

[Santander]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

Uh, no. It is never moral for a human to end the life of another except in self-defense or to protect the lives of others. (which is why capital punishment for murder, treason, etc. has always been understood to be morally justifiable)

[Beet]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

Uh, no. It is never moral for a human to end the life of another except in self-defense or to protect the lives of others. (which is why capital punishment for murder, treason, etc. has always been understood to be morally justifiable)

But why is it not moral? Sure, you draw a comparison with other understandings of moral justifications, but what underpins those?

[Torie]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

Uh, no. It is never moral for a human to end the life of another except in self-defense or to protect the lives of others. (which is why capital punishment for murder, treason, etc. has always been understood to be morally justifiable)

You want to keep someone alive against their own will? Even if their decision is well thought out, and the person is in agony? Myself, if things get bad, I will off myself. I will make my own decision as to when I choose to die.

[fhtagn]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

Uh, no. It is never moral for a human to end the life of another except in self-defense or to protect the lives of others. (which is why capital punishment for murder, treason, etc. has always been understood to be morally justifiable)

So you find it morally acceptable for someone to deny a dying person's chance to die peacefully and with dignity? Do you find it morally acceptable for someone to allow someone to suffer because of their personal beliefs about what is moral?

[Santander]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

Uh, no. It is never moral for a human to end the life of another except in self-defense or to protect the lives of others. (which is why capital punishment for murder, treason, etc. has always been understood to be morally justifiable)

So you find it morally acceptable for someone to deny a dying person's chance to die peacefully and with dignity? Do you find it morally acceptable for someone to allow someone to suffer because of their personal beliefs about what is moral?

There is no dignity in suicide. Only disgrace.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What Santander just said is harsh to the point of cruelty but I do think there's something to be said about the way the word "dignity" gets trotted out in these discussions to, essentially, imply that people have some kind of human right to die with what would traditionally have been understood as their pride intact.

Anyway, I oppose this because legislating any sort of limits to this at all constitutes the government legislating that some lives are more worth protecting than others, and because jurisdictions in which euthanasia has been legalized have often seen really alarming outcomes in social and professional attitudes towards aging and (especially) disability in general.

[afleitch]

I think people have a human right to die with the minimal amount of pain. To say; 'no you must suffer, you must deteriorate, you must beg and I'll say no' as some form of cathartic experience is pretty sinister.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, yes, I understand that position (although your habit of assigning cartoonishly evil sadistic-inquisitor motivations to your opponents on these sorts of issues continues to annoy), but describing that as "dignity" has deeply disturbing implications for what the person using the word thinks of people who do have painful or embarrassing or inconveniently timed deaths.

[afleitch]

Well, yes, I understand that position (although your habit of assigning cartoonishly evil sadistic-inquisitor motivations to your opponents on these sorts of issues continues to annoy), but describing that as "dignity" has deeply disturbing implications for what the person using the word thinks of people who do have painful or embarrassing or inconveniently timed deaths.

I just see them as very moral issues. Allowing a person to die is 'dignified' for the same reason that a person who wishes not to and holds on and is in pain to the end is 'dignified'. I think that should be obvious and I don't see why you can't ascribe dignity to both. If someone has to beg for death, then they are being 'tortured' which is the most inhuman and in need of alleviation position that any human can find itself in.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think you approach these issues in good faith and it's always obvious that you put a lot of moral thought into them, often more than I do, but on this subject in particular I've encountered quite a few people who don't really approach it from a moral standpoint other than in a very basic way, who do seem motivated by a horror of disability and declivity in general that I find more than a little insulting, and who do mean by "dignity" a sort of pride that they assume people who die less than appositely lack. That's all.

[Mike88]

Update:

Expresso newspaper is reporting today that any decision about the legalization of euthanasia will only be made after the Pope's visit to Portugal in May. And apparently, the President is not closing a door to a possible referendum.

http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/decisao-eutanasia-so-da-visita-do-papa-119260

[DC Al Fine]

I oppose this, largely for the reasons Nathan outlined. The change in attitudes towards the disabled and ageing is particularly bad and has some nefarious parallels.

Update:

Expresso newspaper is reporting today that any decision about the legalization of euthanasia will only be made after the Pope's visit to Portugal in May. And apparently, the President is not closing a door to a possible referendum.

http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/decisao-eutanasia-so-da-visita-do-papa-119260

What would the outcome of such a referendum be?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I oppose this, largely for the reasons Nathan outlined. The change in attitudes towards the disabled and ageing is particularly bad and has some nefarious parallels.

Yeah, if it weren't for that I'd be much more willing to write this off as a value pluralism and freedom of choice thing, since it's (in principle) the choice of the person dying.

[Mike88]

I oppose this, largely for the reasons Nathan outlined. The change in attitudes towards the disabled and ageing is particularly bad and has some nefarious parallels.

Update:

Expresso newspaper is reporting today that any decision about the legalization of euthanasia will only be made after the Pope's visit to Portugal in May. And apparently, the President is not closing a door to a possible referendum.

http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/decisao-eutanasia-so-da-visita-do-papa-119260

What would the outcome of such a referendum be?

I only found one poll about the issue and it's from March 2016:

Q: Do you defend the legalization of euthanasia?

67.4% Yes
22.1% No
10.5% Undecided

And in the same poll, a plurality of voters was in favour of a referendum: 47.8% to 31.4%

So based on this poll and on the overall mood about this issue, the result would be a Yes victory but referendums are always risky... In 1998 everyone was saying the yes to abortion was going to win by a landslide and at end it was defeated.

[Person Man]

As my views with assisted suicide, if someone understands the procedure, what it means, and gives consent, who are we to deny it to them?

As long as it can be ensured that they are of sound mind when the decision is made, good for them.

Uh, no. It is never moral for a human to end the life of another except in self-defense or to protect the lives of others. (which is why capital punishment for murder, treason, etc. has always been understood to be morally justifiable)

So you find it morally acceptable for someone to deny a dying person's chance to die peacefully and with dignity? Do you find it morally acceptable for someone to allow someone to suffer because of their personal beliefs about what is moral?

There is no dignity in suicide. Only disgrace.

"Dignity" and "Disgrace" are such abstract and suggestive terms, though. It makes it seem that those are just things you don't like.


And then the question is whether one has a right to live or simply an obligation to the Government to stay alive. I think that is a better question.

It also seems to be a cop-out to just say that legalizing Suicide causes people expect people to off themselves. It is not like legalizing abortion has led to more abortions.

I still don't but the argument that where it is now tolerated, it has made right and wrong so complicated that we have a whole bunch of people that we didn't before that can't stay off the streets or out of jail because they don't understand how to live anymore.

[DavidB.]

I reluctantly support this, but urge Portugal to not go full Netherlands and treat euthanasia as a last resort solution, not as something physicians should suggest themselves or as a replacement of high-standard palliative care.

[Green Line]

What is wrong with Portugal?  Aren't they Catholic?

[Mike88]

What is wrong with Portugal?  Aren't they Catholic?

Yes, around 80% of the population say they are Catholic but only 20% go to mass regularly. Religion isn't very influential politically nowadays. Yes, they were very important in the past particularly during the Revolution but today, religion is more demotivating than motivating.

For example, in the 2007 abortion referendum the church decided to enter in the campaign and across the country many priests started making sermons about abortion and why voters should vote no. In some places they even gave people flyers against abortion. This infuriated many voters and, as a result, in many conservative areas the Yes vote performed quite well.

[Person Man]

What is wrong with Portugal?  Aren't they Catholic?

Yes, around 80% of the population say they are Catholic but only 20% go to mass regularly. Religion isn't very influential politically nowadays. Yes, they were very important in the past particularly during the Revolution but today, religion is more demotivating than motivating.

For example, in the 2007 abortion referendum the church decided to enter in the campaign and across the country many priests started making sermons about abortion and why voters should vote no. In some places they even gave people flyers against abortion. This infuriated many voters and, as a result, in many conservative areas the Yes vote performed quite well.

So a place can still be religious and still respect a seperation of social institutions?